Health Ministry faces questions over BHS-P officer’s appointment, conduct complaints and public projects

Questions have emerged over administrative decisions, workplace complaints and the supervision of publicly funded health projects within Border Health Services Pakistan (BHS-P), following the circulation of official correspondence concerning Medical Officer Dr Syed Ghulam Murtaza Shah.

ISLAMABAD: Questions have emerged over administrative decisions workplace complaints and the supervision of publicly funded health projects within Border Health Services Pakistan (BHS-P), following the circulation of official correspondence concerning Medical Officer Dr Syed Ghulam Murtaza Shah.

Documents cited by Minute Mirror include appointment orders departmental letters an inquiry into an alleged workplace assault and correspondence concerning government accommodation and an official vehicle. The material also raises questions about the officer’s responsibilities following judicial proceedings concerning his earlier appointment as director.

The allegations require examination by the relevant authorities and the documents described in the report do not independently establish criminal wrongdoing.

According to service-related records cited by complainants Dr Shah entered government service as a contract medical officer in 2006 at BS-17. His subsequent assignments included responsibility for Civil Surgeon duties in Karachi and an additional charge associated with the Directorate of Central Health Establishment in June 2022.

The directorate oversees health facilities and services linked to ports airports and federal government dispensaries.

A separate order issued later that month returned the directorate from Islamabad to Karachi. Complainants dispute whether the judicial decisions cited in support of the relocation authorised the transfer of the entire organisation or addressed only the adjustment of particular employees.

The report also refers to FIR No. 257/2011 registered at Karachi Airport Police Station following the death of Dr Najia Bhutto identified in the supplied material as Dr Shah’s wife.

According to the complainants the case was registered under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code after the initial circumstances surrounding her death were challenged by family members.

However, the final judicial outcome has not been established from the relevant court record in the material provided. Any assessment of its implications for subsequent appointments requires verification of the case disposition and applicable service rules.

The report cites a Peshawar High Court judgment from January 2024 concerning Dr Shah’s appointment as director which complainants say restricted his future appointment to that position.

A departmental order dated July 29, 2026, subsequently assigned him duties at a Karachi airport health facility while also giving him supervisory responsibilities for development projects. These reportedly include upgrading three dispensaries into community health centres constructing isolation hospitals in Lahore, Islamabad and Sost and maintaining existing facilities.

The precise scope of his authority under the order, and its consistency with the cited judicial ruling, warrant clarification from the ministry.

Other correspondence concerns a notice directing Dr Shah to vacate official accommodation, questions about attendance and the handling of a government vehicle, and a departmental inquiry into an alleged physical altercation with an employee in February 2023.

The supplied documents also describe complaints involving staff treatment, workplace transfers and the collection of vaccination-related fees from travellers. These allegations require separate investigation, while the applicable fee schedule and collection procedures should be confirmed by the health authorities.

Minute Mirror states that it has sought responses from the ministry and the officer. Their explanations together with relevant court records and inquiry findings, will be important in determining whether administrative rules were breached and whether further action is justified.

The matter raises questions about accountability personnel management and oversight of publicly funded health services. Any conclusions should be based on verified records and findings by the competent authorities